Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Section 39 in The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Mohd. Izaz Abdul Rafique vs Additional Commissioner on 2 December, 2009
7 The judgment of Mohd.Izaz Abdul Rafique (supra) proceeds
1 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1924 : (2010) 1 Bom CR 77 : (2010) 2 AIR Bom R (NOC 163) 49
4/8
sat wp 10345-2019.doc
on an entirely different footing. That was a case arising under Bombay
Village Panchayats Act. Section 182 of that Act provides for delegation of
powers by a Commissioner or a Collector to an officer not below the rank
of Mamlatdar, Tahsildar, Naib-Tahsildar or Mahalkari. The provision is
subject to general or special powers of the State Government. The section
inter alia provides for the power of the State Government to delegate its
powers under that Act. Such delegation can be done to a Commissioner or
any other officer by notification in the Official Gazette. The Commissioner
or Collector may, however, delegate his own powers under Sub-section (4)
of Section 182 to any officer below the rank of Mamlatdar, Tahsildar, Naib-
Tahsildar or Mahalkari. So also, Chief Executive Officer may under Sub-
Section (5) of Section 182 delegate any of his powers to any officer
working under Zilla Parishad. The Division Bench in that case was
conscious of the fact that barring a Gazette Notification, which was
required under Sub-section (1) of Section 182, the other sub-sections,
namely, Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 182, did not prescribe the
requirement of a notification in the official Gazette of any delegation. The
Court observed that what emerged from Section 182(1) as well as from
Section 182(4) was that Section 182(4) permitted delegation of powers
exercisable by a Commissioner or a Collector under the Act and for such
delegation, the law did not require any notification in Official Gazette. The
Division Bench did not find fault with respect to entrustment of the charge
of the post of Additional Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner as was the
case before it. In the particular case before the Division Bench, it was not a
matter of dispute that entrustment of charge of the post of Additional
Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner was done by a memorandum
issued by the State Government. The court did not treat this as an order of
delegation. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner in the case, who
5/8
sat wp 10345-2019.doc
was officially put in charge of the post of Additional Commissioner, had no
barriers on his exercise of powers and so long he was holding the charge of
the post, he was for all purposes an Additional Commissioner equipped
with all legal powers, functions, duties, jurisdiction etc. These facts are
clearly distinguishable from the facts of our case. As we have noted above,
in our case, the law itself requires the matter to be decided only by the
Appropriate Government or an authority specified by it vide a Gazette
Notification. As we have noted above, the Gazette Notification of the State
Government only specified the Commissioner of Labour himself and the
Additional Commissioner of Labour, Thane for the local area of Pune
Division as an authority specified for the purposes of Section 25-M. If that
is so, as we have noted above, Respondent No.2 had no power to pass any
order under Section 25-M.
8 Learned AGP submits that the Petitioner herein never raised
the issue of want of power or authority on the part of Respondent when the
application under Section 25-M was being considered by Respondent No.2.
That is neither here nor there. If there is an inherent lack of jurisdiction or
authority, the same cannot be conferred by the parties through their
volition. The want of jurisdiction or authority strikes at the root of exercise
of jurisdiction or authority.
1